Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
the agro-ecosystem” (276). Climatic and soil properties were included in
the analysis of nutrient and erosion indicators (studied through groundwa-
ter loading effects), pesticide indicators (measured as risk potential), and
biodiversity indicators (combining on-farm wooded areas and hedgerows
with crop diversity). Financial indicators were“gross margins” that included
revenues from production, government payments, costs of fertilizers and
pesticides, and cost of maintenance for ecological activities. Overall, the or-
ganic farming systems performed better than the integrated or conventional
systems “with respect to nitrogen losses, pesticide risk, herbaceous plant
biodiversity, and most of the other environmental indicators” (273). And
the gross margins were 6-8 percent higher on certified organic farms. The
authors note that the overall sustainability of any form of agriculture must
be questioned, particularly because of climatic and geographic variations
across the landscape.
Edwards-Jones and Howells (2001) sought to determine whether organic
farming was more sustainable than conventional farming on the source
of crop inputs for crop protection and the environmental hazard of the
chemicals used. They simply obtained lists of “approved” substances from
the Soil Association (the main organic certification agency in the UK) and a
random list of ten chemicals that “might typically be used in a conventional
farming system” (41). But they did nothing to verify whether the “approved”
substances are actually used by organic farmers and, if so, to what extent.
Likewise, they do not provide information on the extent to which the con-
ventional insecticides and fungicides (they don't mention herbicides, which
are commonly quite toxic) are used in conventional production. Thus this
article presented a hypothetical worst-case scenario for organic methods
with no reference to the known hazards of conventional production. And
the authors raised more questions than they answered. In fact, some very
simple fieldwork and data collection would go a long way in developing a
more realistic view of the variations in chemical use (thus toxicity) between
organic and conventional farms.
For example, among newly transitioned organic farmers Bt ( Bacillus
thuringiensis , a bacterial insecticide that controls caterpillars or beetle lar-
vae but remains nontoxic to other organisms) is sometimes needed in the
first few years without synthetic chemicals. But as the transition is complete,
the soil becomes more balanced and the farmer's organic farming skills are
honed. Then they can often forego the use of this bio-insecticide. So, just be-
cause something is listed as allowed in organic farming, this does not mean
that it is used very often. Many organic inputs are prohibitively expensive, so
inputs are only a last resort. On the other hand, many conventional farmers
[60], (21)
Lines: 215 to 219
———
0.0pt PgVar
———
Normal Page
PgEnds: T E X
[60], (21)
Search WWH ::




Custom Search